full quotation from the Chairman

[Dddddd0814 at aol.com]

>>Changes certainly occur, and are often accompanied by violence, 
but the change itself is composed of new relations and new 
activities which begin at the margins and in the interstices 
of the existing social structure. If the change is effective, 
the violence occurs only towards the end of the revolutionary 
process, as the ruling classes of the period split apart, some 
trying to hold on to what they had, the other trying to take 
advantage of new conditions. If only one could restore 
consciousness to what I have called the "dark matter", the 
whole scheme of ruling classes, leaders and heroes of any 
kind could be subverted; who actually needs them?>> 


>>So I think Mao was wrong, except in the sense in which 
_revolution_ means "to go around in a circle and come back to 
the point from which one started". But now, and for a long 
time to come, his way will be much more popular than mine. 
As long as people are still influenced by the long history of 
slavery they will not only be fascinated by violence but will 
continue to believe that it is not merely entertaining but 
practical and effective. But we can't pull them away from 
this superstition by practicing a version of it. >>

So, I am just trying to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that 
the changes accompanied by violence are different from the ones not 
accompanied by violence? I.e., those changes are less "practical and 
effective" because they are accompanied by violence? Just want to understand 
what you mean, because otherwise we seem to be in agreement-- as long as 
class antagonisms prevail, there will be violence present in shifts of power 
between one class and another.

-- David